was a mistake. Such a theory was impossible. If disunion ever could have been accomplished, it certainly was not possible on the ground of human slavery, after more than a half century of bitter controversy and political trickery had enlisted and deepened the convictions and principles of a stubborn race of people against its continuance. This root of all evils was thus destined to destroy itself.

In the intense discussion which now ensued in Congress at New York, and which Mr. Madison said, in a letter to Edmund Randolph, was "shamefully indecent," the Quakers were made the target. The abuse they received was quite characteristic of that heaped upon a more belligerent class of men at a much later date. An attempt was made by the Southern hot heads who conducted the matter to defend slavery, not so much apologize for it, a thing which had hardly been ventured upon before, and pretty much all the so-called arguments of after times were introduced. Even the "shamefully indecent" Bible defense of slavery was made at this time, a piece of childish folly behind which pro-slavery advocates more firmly intrenched themselves as the "irrepressible conflict"

went on.

Mr. Madison thought that the Quaker petitions deserved consideration, and mildly spoke of the sentiments of humanity involved in the question. He said, too, that while it was true that Congress could not interfere with the slave trade which, by limitation of the Constitution, died in 1808, it could in some ways contribute to the abolition, especially in the new territories. Nor did he deny that Congress had the right to interfere in regulating the cruel features of the

Lice

ns de

f the

trade. And while he thought the matter should have rested quietly for the time behind the doubtful guarantees of the Constitution, he was the enemy of slavery, and exhibited his sentiments in no doubtful manner at this juncture in Congress. But he was not a man of great courage, and it is quite evident that his sentiments on this subject were coming under the restraint imposed by the turn the affair was taking and the interests of his own political aspirations.

The "apshot" of this early assault on slavery was the discovery, at last, that Congress could not interfere with the slave trade until 1808, and reports were placed on record to that effect, with the additional warning that further agitation of the unsavory subject would be detrimental to the peace of the country. But in the various volumes of this work it may be seen, here and there, how little this admonition was heeded in any quarter.

Early in August, 1790, Congress adjourned to meet in December at Philadelphia, which, according to the

recent <6

accommodation," was to be the seat of the

Government for ten years.

During the long-continued debates in this session of Congress Mr. Madison was accused of holding to the fancy that Congress had no right to legislate

foolish

for posterity. But no man could have been farther

from

Such a view than Madison, and the error took

rise from an incautious exposure of one of Mr. Jeffer

son's

In

characteristic speculations.

a letter to him, this apostle of democracy had

set forth a theory that no society or government could legislate for a future generation, that its authority must be limited to a term of nineteen years.

This brought a reply from Mr. Madison, dated February 4, 1790, at New York, in which he writes:

"My first thoughts lead me to view the doctrine as not in all respects compatible with the course of human affairs. I will endeavor to sketch the grounds of my skepticism.

"As the Earth belongs to the living, not to the dead, a liv. ing generation can bind itself only; in every society, the will of the majority binds the whole; according to the laws of mortality, a majority of those ripe for their will do not live beyond the term of nineteen years; to this term, then is limited the validity of every act of the society, nor can any act be continued beyond this term, without an express declaration of the public will.'

"This I understand to be the outline of the argument. "The acts of a political society may be divided into three classes:

"1. The fundamental constitution of the government. "2. Laws involving some stipulation which renders them irrevocable at the will of the Legislature.

"3. Laws involving no such irrevocable quality.

"1. How applicable in theory the doctrine may be to a constitution, it seems liable in practice to some weighty objections.

"Would not a government, ceasing of necessity at the end of a given term, unless prolonged by some constitutional act previous to its expiration, be too subject to the casualty and consequences of an interregnum?

"Would not a government, so often revised, become too mutable and novel to retain that share of prejudice in its favor which is a salutary aid to the most rational government?

"Would not such a periodical revision engender pernicious factions that might not otherwise come into existence, and agitate the public mind more frequently and more violently than might be expedient?

"2. In the second class, of acts involving stipulations, must not exceptions, at least, to the doctrine, be admitted?

"If the earth be the gift of nature to the living, their title can extend to the earth in its natural state only. The improvements made by the dead form a debt against the living, who take the benefit of them. This debt can not be otherwise discharged than by a proportionate obedience to the will of the authors of the improvements.

"But a case less liable to be controverted may, perhaps, be stated. Debts may be incurred with a direct view to the interests of the unborn, as well as the living. Such are debts for repelling a conquest, the evils of which descend through many generations. Debts may even be incurred principally for the benefit of posterity. Such, perhaps, is the debt incurred by the United States. In such instances the debt might not be dischargeable within the term of nineteen years.

"There seems, then, to be some foundation in the nature of things, in the relation which one generation bears to another, for the descent of obligations from one to another. Equity may require it. Mutual good may be promoted by it. And all that seems indispensable in stating the account between the dead and the living, is to see that the debts against the latter do not exceed the advances made by the former. Few of the incumbrances entailed on nations by their predecessors would bear a liquidation even on this principle.

3. Objections to the doctrine, as applied to the third class of acts, must be merely practical. But in that view alone they

appear to be material.

Nor does it seem improbable

"Unless such temporary laws should be kept in force by acts regularly anticipating their expiration, all the rights depending on positive laws-that is, most of the rights of property-would become absolutely defunct, and the most violent struggles ensue between the parties interested in reviving and those interested in reforming, the antecedent state of property. that such an event might be suffered to take place. The checks and difficulties opposed to the passage of laws, which render the power of repeal inferior to an opportunity to reject as a security against oppression, would here render the latter an insecure provision against anarchy. Add to this, that the very possibility of an event so hazardous to the rights of property, could not but depreciate its value; that the approach of the crisis would increase the effect; that the frequent return of periods suspending all the obligations dependent on antecedent laws and usages must, by weakening the sense of them, co-operate with motives to licentiousness already too powerful: and that the general uncertainty and vicissitudes of such a state of things would, on one side, discourage every

useful

effort of steady industry pursued under the sanction of

existing laws, and, on the other, give an immediate advantage to the more sagacious over the less sagacious part of the society."

CHAPTER XI.

MR. MADISON IN CONGRESS-END OF THE BETTER HALF OF HIS CAREER-DOLLY PAYNE TODD-GENERAL WASHINGTON AND MR. MADISON-A PAGE IN THE CONGRESSMAN'S LIFE—A SCAR-MR, MAD

IN

ISON IN HIS CHANGED COAT.

N December Congress again met, but this time in Philadelphia. The most important matters now before that body were a revision of the revenue system to meet the increased public debt, and the establishment of a national bank. For the revenue tax Mr. Madison voted with hesitancy, but he became the leader in the House against the proposition of Mr. Hamilton to establish a bank. He took the position that the bank scheme was unconstitutional, but on this main ground of opposition he was not able to answer the arguments of the friends of the measure, who maintained that while the Constitution did not make provision for the establishment of a national bank, it was admitted that Congress had implied powers not expressly conferred. This being the case, if it could appear that a thing intrusted to the Government could be best done through the instrumentality of a bank, then it would appear unstatesmanlike and unpatriotic to oppose the measure. Mr. Madison also considered the bank project impolitic, and thought the banking interests could be more wisely diffused among the States, a plan more suited to the